Why Isn't Rand Adressing Medicare & Medicaid?

[anaconda]

I just watched a Frontline from 2009 last night called "Ten Trillion and
Counting." It says that the sum of social security, medicare, and medicaid will become equal to the entire current budget in the not too distant future. So, of these three, why is Rand only talking about social security? Furthermore, why aren't his adversaries calling him a hypocrite for not proposing cuts to these programs when he said that cuts should be "across the board?"

 

[tsai3904]

Rand has said in interviews that he will introduce a bill to fix social security first and then medicare and medicaid afterwards. One step at a time.

 

[ronaldo23]

March = SS plan and debate

April = Medicare plan

He's kept his medicare ideas under wraps for now, but I'm presuming he will propose means testing and the $2000 deductible for 55 and under to create competition

 

[JohnEngland]

 

[specsaregood]

It's funny, I got a Social security statement in the mail today. It had a FAQ sheet inside.
One of the FAQ questions was: "Will social security be there when I retire?"
The answer was, "Yes,..." then it went on for 2 paragraphs explaining how it was gonna be bankrupt by 2037. LOL, I won't be eligible for benefits by 2037, so what exactly will "be there"? nothing. Talk about double-speak.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Because he's been in the Senate less than 2 months. Because the problem with Washington is huge complicated bills with tons of unrelated extras thrown in and he'd rather create smaller individual bills addressing specific issues one at a time. Because you're impatient and he wants to piss you off.

 

[MaxPower]

Furthermore, why aren't his adversaries calling him a hypocrite for not proposing cuts to these programs when he said that cuts should be "across the board?"

Perhaps they've been following him more closely than you have; Rand openly talked during his campaign about eventual increases in Medicare deductibles (a plank which got him in all kinds of trouble, especially after Conway ran with it and tried to act like Rand wanted to raise deductibles on current Medicare recipients) and the institution of Medicare means testing. He is going to try for Medicare/Medicaid reform; right now he is on Social Security. He's only been in Congress a month-and-a-half, and has already been incredibly active in that little time span; he doesn't have to do everything at once.

 

[anaconda]

Thanks for the posts. I'm not impatient. I just wondered about this. I seem to vaguely remember the medicare deductible issue in the KY election.

 

[ctiger2]

Rand has stated several times that he left out medicare/medicaid/SS on purpose to make a point that you could still cut $500 Billion without even touching those programs.

 

[outspoken]

As a physician, it will be a difficult challenge for him to take on medicare and he is wise to show his true colors with SS first. The liberals will nail him to the cross for not committing to reducing doc payments claiming he is just protecting all the 'greedy' docs like himself. He will need more politicians on board before he can tackle medicare and even then I'm not sure he will be able to take the lead on the that one. He might just have to be the mastermind behind the curtain. Ultimately, we need someone to step up to the plate and phase out medicare altogether but the citizens and especially AARP are not close to being ready to hear that.

 

[Eryxis]

I want to bounce an idea off of you guys. I'll preface this with the fact that I'm really an anarcho-capitalist at heart. I believe that if people insist on having some sort of a "safety net" then a fixed dollar amount to cover the "essentials" where the recipient can choose what services to spend it on, but if they use up a certain yearly/lifetime amount then too bad. Of course there will still be a ridiculous amount of wealth redistribution with this type of system, but it seems like it would stop the bleeding a bit. Oh yeah, if you do not use up your lifetime max then your family gets a portion as a death benefit, encouraging you to minimize usage hopefully.

 

[sailingaway]

Give the man time, he is doing one at a time and needs to get enough votes to pass it. Things like medicare and social security are emergencies that need 'a fix' asap even if it isn't the perfect fix, which he can work on afterwards. I don't think that kind of major structural change is what we will see in the short run, to be honest.

 

[AlexMerced]

Rand Paul has been a senator for less than two months, I wish we held all our other senators to such a high standard.

 

[Jandrsn21]

It's funny, I got a Social security statement in the mail today. It had a FAQ sheet inside.
One of the FAQ questions was: "Will social security be there when I retire?"
The answer was, "Yes,..." then it went on for 2 paragraphs explaining how it was gonna be bankrupt by 2037. LOL, I won't be eligible for benefits by 2037, so what exactly will "be there"? nothing. Talk about double-speak.

LOL got the exact same one! Was reading it and couldn't help to start laughing. Will SS be there when I retire YES...... but actually no. But don't worry keep paying! You might get something.... but you probably won't! Disclaimer..... don't email your representative, we want that money sucker!!!! HAHAHAHA!! That is more of a cackle, I imagine all government workers as trolls! lol

 

[low preference guy]

Rand Paul has been a senator for less than two months, I wish we held all our other senators to such a high standard.

We do, that's why we hate most of them.

 

[anaconda]

As a physician, it will be a difficult challenge for him to take on medicare and he is wise to show his true colors with SS first. The liberals will nail him to the cross for not committing to reducing doc payments claiming he is just protecting all the 'greedy' docs like himself. He will need more politicians on board before he can tackle medicare and even then I'm not sure he will be able to take the lead on the that one. He might just have to be the mastermind behind the curtain. Ultimately, we need someone to step up to the plate and phase out medicare altogether but the citizens and especially AARP are not close to being ready to hear that.

On the contrary, wouldn't a physician Senator carry the most credibility for speaking out against medicare? Rand will not be able to be called a hypocrite because he will remind everyone that he is not a career politician and that he will be returning to his medical practice.

 

[outspoken]

While I agree that a physician, particularly one with a strong understanding of economics!, would be best to remedy the situation, the liberals as well as the people that buy into the bs they sell will make Paul's income of 300-400K an issue. It is a conflict of interest or at least a perceived one because 50% of his practice comes from federal programs. The liberals play off of human beings inherent desire to covet other people's incomes and lifestyles. Paul knows that Medicare should have never been initiated just as his father has pointed out numerous times. It was established as a ploy for votes/power playing off human natures most unconscious fears and desire for security, i.e. death/disability. We have created a monster of a problem where there is a very large sector of the population that sees no problem stealing from other people through government because they think certain people make too much money. Health care costs are high and rising directly because of government intervention and until people accept this the medicare issue will not be resolved imo. While physicians like Paul and Tom Courborn in govt know the challenges within medicine first hand, the citizens will easily fall prey to seeing them as greedy and protecting their turf.